pith. sign in

arxiv: 2501.14110 · v4 · submitted 2025-01-23 · 💻 cs.HC

Value Sensitive Design for Fair Online Recruitment: A Conceptual Framework Informed by Job Seekers' Fairness Concerns

Changyang He , Yue Deng , Alessandro Fabris , Bo Li , Asia Biega This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 04:36 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords fairnessrecruitmentvalue sensitive designjob seekersdiscriminationgrounded theoryconceptual framework
0
0 comments X

The pith

A conceptual framework for fair online recruitment is derived from job seekers' fairness concerns using value sensitive design.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper seeks to create a conceptual framework for fair online recruitment systems by examining the fairness concerns that job seekers actually express in online communities. Using grounded theory on posts from r/jobs, it identifies four key themes of concerns that extend beyond typical legal protections. These themes are then used with value sensitive design to propose implications for algorithms and interfaces throughout the hiring process. Readers would care about this because it grounds fairness research in real user experiences rather than abstract ideals, potentially leading to more effective anti-discrimination measures in digital hiring.

Core claim

Analysis of job seeker discussions reveals four overarching themes of fairness concerns: personal attribute discrimination beyond legally protected attributes, interaction biases, improper interpretations of qualifications, and power imbalance. Integrating these with value sensitive design produces design implications for fair algorithms and interfaces, which are organized into a conceptual framework covering different stages of the hiring process.

What carries the argument

Value sensitive design applied to the four fairness concern themes to create a conceptual framework for recruitment systems.

Load-bearing premise

Concerns posted on r/jobs represent typical job seekers' views and can be converted into reliable design implications for recruitment systems without additional empirical validation.

What would settle it

A study that finds job seekers in general do not share the same four fairness concerns identified from the forum, or that the proposed designs fail to improve fairness perceptions when implemented.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14110 by Alessandro Fabris, Asia Biega, Bo Li, Changyang He, Yue Deng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Descriptive statistics on (a) temporal trend and (b) topic distribution of posts in r/jobs. The count in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A framework for designing fair recruitment algorithms [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: A framework for designing fair recruitment interfaces [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The susceptibility to biases and discrimination is a pressing issue in today's labor markets. While digital recruitment systems play an increasingly significant role in human resource management, a systematic understanding of human-centered design principles for fair online hiring remains lacking, particularly considering the gap between idealized conceptualizations of fairness in research and actual fairness concerns expressed by job seekers. To address this gap, this work explores the potential of developing a fair recruitment framework based on job seekers' fairness concerns shared in r/jobs, one of the largest online job communities. Through a grounded theory approach, we uncover four overarching themes of job seekers' fairness concerns: personal attribute discrimination beyond legally protected attributes, interaction biases, improper interpretations of qualifications, and power imbalance. Drawing on value sensitive design, we derive design implications for fair algorithms and interfaces in recruitment systems, integrating them into a conceptual framework that spans different hiring stages.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper applies grounded theory to posts from the r/jobs subreddit to identify four themes of job seekers' fairness concerns (personal attribute discrimination beyond protected classes, interaction biases, improper qualification interpretations, and power imbalance). It then draws on value sensitive design (VSD) to derive design implications for algorithms and interfaces, which are integrated into a conceptual framework spanning hiring stages.

Significance. If the themes prove representative and the translation to design implications is validated, the work would usefully bridge idealized fairness metrics in algorithmic fairness research with empirically observed job-seeker concerns, offering stage-specific guidance for recruitment systems. The use of real-world Reddit data and VSD integration is a strength for grounding the framework.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Methods] Abstract and Methods section: the description of the grounded theory process supplies no information on the number of posts sampled, the time window or search strategy used to collect r/jobs data, the coding procedure (open, axial, selective), inter-rater reliability measures, or how theoretical saturation was assessed. These details are load-bearing because the four themes constitute the sole empirical foundation for the subsequent VSD-derived framework.
  2. [Findings and Framework] Findings and Framework sections: the paper does not report any steps taken to assess whether the four themes generalize beyond the self-selected, English-language, tech-oriented r/jobs population (e.g., comparison with other subreddits, surveys, or industry-specific samples). This directly affects the claim that the framework is “informed by job seekers’ fairness concerns.”
  3. [Design Implications and Framework] Design Implications and Framework sections: the mapping from the four themes to concrete algorithm/interface recommendations and the stage-spanning conceptual framework is presented without any validation (job-seeker feedback, prototype testing, or expert review). This interpretive step is central to the paper’s contribution yet remains untested.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states the method and themes but does not preview the sample characteristics or limitations; adding a brief clause would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

Thank you for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment below, indicating revisions where appropriate to improve clarity and rigor while preserving the conceptual nature of the work.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Methods] Abstract and Methods section: the description of the grounded theory process supplies no information on the number of posts sampled, the time window or search strategy used to collect r/jobs data, the coding procedure (open, axial, selective), inter-rater reliability measures, or how theoretical saturation was assessed. These details are load-bearing because the four themes constitute the sole empirical foundation for the subsequent VSD-derived framework.

    Authors: We agree that the Methods section is insufficiently detailed. In the revised manuscript we will expand this section to report the number of posts sampled, the time window and search strategy for data collection from r/jobs, the full coding procedure (open, axial, and selective coding), any inter-rater reliability measures, and the approach used to assess theoretical saturation. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Findings and Framework] Findings and Framework sections: the paper does not report any steps taken to assess whether the four themes generalize beyond the self-selected, English-language, tech-oriented r/jobs population (e.g., comparison with other subreddits, surveys, or industry-specific samples). This directly affects the claim that the framework is “informed by job seekers’ fairness concerns.”

    Authors: The paper presents the framework as informed by fairness concerns expressed within the r/jobs community rather than as representative of all job seekers. We will add an explicit limitations paragraph clarifying the data source scope, the self-selected nature of the sample, and the exploratory intent of the work. This will prevent overgeneralization while retaining the value of grounding the framework in real-world concerns from this active online community. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Design Implications and Framework] Design Implications and Framework sections: the mapping from the four themes to concrete algorithm/interface recommendations and the stage-spanning conceptual framework is presented without any validation (job-seeker feedback, prototype testing, or expert review). This interpretive step is central to the paper’s contribution yet remains untested.

    Authors: The mapping is performed conceptually via value sensitive design applied to the identified themes; the contribution is the resulting stage-spanning framework itself. No empirical validation (feedback, prototypes, or expert review) was conducted because the paper proposes a conceptual artifact rather than an evaluated system. We will revise the text to state this scope explicitly and to outline future empirical validation as an avenue for subsequent research. revision: no

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: derivation from external Reddit data via grounded theory plus VSD literature

full rationale

The paper's central chain proceeds from external r/jobs posts (analyzed via standard grounded theory) to four themes, then applies value sensitive design principles drawn from prior literature to derive design implications and a framework. No equations, fitted parameters, self-definitional constructs, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the provided abstract or described method. The derivation remains self-contained against external inputs and does not reduce any claim to its own outputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the assumption that Reddit forum data captures representative concerns and that value sensitive design can validly convert those concerns into system design implications; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Grounded theory applied to r/jobs posts can reliably identify overarching themes of fairness concerns
    Invoked to uncover the four themes from the data source.
  • domain assumption Value sensitive design is suitable for deriving actionable design implications from user-expressed fairness concerns
    Used to integrate the themes into the conceptual framework.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5687 in / 1253 out tokens · 37014 ms · 2026-05-23T04:36:40.308793+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 83 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Mohsen Abbasi, Sorelle A Friedler, Carlos Scheidegger, and Suresh Venkatasubramanian. 2019. Fairness in representa- tion: quantifying stereotyping as a representational harm. In Proceedings of the 2019 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining. SIAM, 801–809

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    G Stoney Alder and Joseph Gilbert. 2006. Achieving ethics and fairness in hiring: Going beyond the law. Journal of Business Ethics 68 (2006), 449–464

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    Neil Anderson. 2011. Perceived job discrimination: Toward a model of applicant propensity to case initiation in selection. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 19, 3 (2011), 229–244

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Zinat Ara, Amrita Ganguly, Donna Peppard, Dongjun Chung, Slobodan Vucetic, Vivian Genaro Motti, and Sungsoo Ray Hong. 2024. Collaborative Job Seeking for People with Autism: Challenges and Design Opportunities. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–17

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Lena Armstrong, Jayne Everson, and Amy J Ko. 2023. Navigating a black box: Students’ experiences and perceptions of automated hiring. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research-Volume

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Tara Behrend, Steven Toaddy, Lori Foster Thompson, and David J Sharek. 2012. The effects of avatar appearance on interviewer ratings in virtual employment interviews. Computers in Human Behavior 28, 6 (2012), 2128–2133

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Alex Beutel, Jilin Chen, Tulsee Doshi, Hai Qian, Li Wei, Yi Wu, Lukasz Heldt, Zhe Zhao, Lichan Hong, Ed H Chi, et al

    work page

  8. [8]

    In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining

    Fairness in recommendation ranking through pairwise comparisons. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining . 2212–2220

    work page

  9. [9]

    Brandon M Booth, Louis Hickman, Shree Krishna Subburaj, Louis Tay, Sang Eun Woo, and Sidney K D’Mello. 2021. Bias and fairness in multimodal machine learning: A case study of automated video interviews. In Proceedings of the 2021 international conference on multimodal interaction . 268–277

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    Stephen Cave and Kanta Dihal. 2019. Hopes and fears for intelligent machines in fiction and reality. Nature machine intelligence 1, 2 (2019), 74–78

    work page 2019

  11. [11]

    Sarah H Cen and Manish Raghavan. 2023. The Right to Be an Exception to a Data-Driven Rule. (2023)

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    Phoebe K Chua and Melissa Mazmanian. 2020. Are you one of us? Current hiring practices suggest the potential for class biases in large tech companies. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW2 (2020), 1–20

    work page 2020

  13. [13]

    Jason A Colquitt and Jessica B Rodell. 2015. Measuring justice and fairness. The Oxford handbook of justice in the workplace 1 (2015), 187–202

    work page 2015

  14. [14]

    Juliet Corbin and Anselm Strauss. 2015. Basics of qualitative research . Vol. 14. sage

    work page 2015

  15. [15]

    Supreme Court

    U.S. Supreme Court. 1971. Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/424/. Accessed: 2024-08-14

    work page 1971

  16. [16]

    Cassandra L Crone and Rachel W Kallen. 2022. Interview with an avatar: Comparing online and virtual reality perspective taking for gender bias in STEM hiring decisions. PloS one 17, 6 (2022), e0269430. J. ACM, Vol. 1, No. 1, Article 1. Publication date: January 2025. 1:22 Changyang He, Yue Deng, Alessandro Fabris, Bo Li, and Asia Biega

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    Maria De-Arteaga, Alexey Romanov, Hanna Wallach, Jennifer Chayes, Christian Borgs, Alexandra Chouldechova, Sahin Geyik, Krishnaram Kenthapadi, and Adam Tauman Kalai. 2019. Bias in bios: A case study of semantic representation bias in a high-stakes setting. In proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency . 120–128

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

    Tawanna R Dillahunt, Aarti Israni, Alex Jiahong Lu, Mingzhi Cai, and Joey Chiao-Yin Hsiao. 2021. Examining the use of online platforms for employment: A survey of US job seekers. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing Systems . 1–23

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    Jessica Maria Echterhoff, Matin Yarmand, and Julian McAuley. 2022. AI-moderated decision-making: Capturing and balancing anchoring bias in sequential decision tasks. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–9

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    Shady Elbassuoni, Sihem Amer-Yahia, and Ahmad Ghizzawi. 2020. Fairness of scoring in online job marketplaces. ACM Transactions on Data Science 1, 4 (2020), 1–30

    work page 2020

  21. [21]

    Alessandro Fabris, Nina Baranowska, Matthew J Dennis, Philipp Hacker, Jorge Saldivar, Frederik Zuiderveen Borgesius, and Asia J Biega. 2023. Fairness and bias in algorithmic hiring. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.13933 (2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    Alessandro Fabris, Stefano Messina, Gianmaria Silvello, and Gian Antonio Susto. 2022. Algorithmic fairness datasets: the story so far. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 36, 6 (2022), 2074–2152

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    Sorelle A Friedler, Carlos Scheidegger, and Suresh Venkatasubramanian. 2021. The (im) possibility of fairness: Different value systems require different mechanisms for fair decision making. Commun. ACM 64, 4 (2021), 136–143

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    Batya Friedman. 1996. Value-sensitive design. interactions 3, 6 (1996), 16–23

    work page 1996

  25. [25]

    Radhika Garg, Yash Kapadia, and Subhasree Sengupta. 2021. Using the lenses of emotion and support to understand unemployment discourse on Reddit. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–24

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    Sahin Cem Geyik, Stuart Ambler, and Krishnaram Kenthapadi. 2019. Fairness-aware ranking in search & recommenda- tion systems with application to linkedin talent search. In Proceedings of the 25th acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining . 2221–2231

    work page 2019

  27. [27]

    Alejandra Gomez Ortega, Jacky Bourgeois, Wiebke Toussaint Hutiri, and Gerd Kortuem. 2023. Beyond data transactions: a framework for meaningfully informed data donation. AI & SOCIETY (2023), 1–18

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    Nina Grgic-Hlaca, Muhammad Bilal Zafar, Krishna P Gummadi, and Adrian Weller. 2016. The case for process fairness in learning: Feature selection for fair decision making. In NIPS symposium on machine learning and the law , Vol. 1. Barcelona, Spain, 11

    work page 2016

  29. [29]

    Anikó Hannák, Claudia Wagner, David Garcia, Alan Mislove, Markus Strohmaier, and Christo Wilson. 2017. Bias in online freelance marketplaces: Evidence from taskrabbit and fiverr. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing . 1914–1933

    work page 2017

  30. [30]

    Moritz Hardt, Eric Price, and Nati Srebro. 2016. Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. Advances in neural information processing systems 29 (2016)

    work page 2016

  31. [31]

    Marc P Hauer, Johannes Kevekordes, and Maryam Amir Haeri. 2021. Legal perspective on possible fairness measures–a legal discussion using the example of hiring decisions. Computer Law & Security Review 42 (2021), 105583

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    Leo Hemamou and William Coleman. 2022. Delivering fairness in human resources ai: Mutual information to the rescue. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 12th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers) . 867–882

    work page 2022

  33. [33]

    Léo Hemamou, Arthur Guillon, Jean-Claude Martin, and Chloé Clavel. 2021. Don’t judge me by my face: An indirect adversarial approach to remove sensitive information from multimodal neural representation in asynchronous job video interviews. In 2021 9th International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII) . IEEE, 1–8

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    Shenggang Hu, Jabir Alshehabi Al-Ani, Karen D Hughes, Nicole Denier, Alla Konnikov, Lei Ding, Jinhan Xie, Yang Hu, Monideepa Tarafdar, Bei Jiang, et al. 2022. Balancing gender bias in job advertisements with text-level bias mitigation. Frontiers in big Data 5 (2022), 805713

    work page 2022

  35. [35]

    Patrick Kline, Evan K Rose, and Christopher R Walters. 2022. Systemic discrimination among large US employers. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 137, 4 (2022), 1963–2036

    work page 2022

  36. [36]

    Max Langenkamp, Allan Costa, and Chris Cheung. 2020. Hiring fairly in the age of algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.07132 (2020)

    work page arXiv 2020

  37. [37]

    Finding the Magic Sauce

    Mitra Lashkari and Jinghui Cheng. 2023. “Finding the Magic Sauce”: Exploring Perspectives of Recruiters and Job Seekers on Recruitment Bias and Automated Tools. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–16

    work page 2023

  38. [38]

    Maude Lavanchy, Patrick Reichert, Jayanth Narayanan, and Krishna Savani. 2023. Applicants’ fairness perceptions of algorithm-driven hiring procedures. Journal of Business Ethics 188, 1 (2023), 125–150

    work page 2023

  39. [39]

    Min Kyung Lee, Anuraag Jain, Hea Jin Cha, Shashank Ojha, and Daniel Kusbit. 2019. Procedural justice in algorithmic fairness: Leveraging transparency and outcome control for fair algorithmic mediation. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1–26. J. ACM, Vol. 1, No. 1, Article 1. Publication date: January 2025. Developing a F...

    work page 2019

  40. [40]

    Barbara Leporini, Marina Buzzi, and Marion Hersh. 2023. Video conferencing tools: Comparative study of the experiences of screen reader users and the development of more inclusive design guidelines. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing 16, 1 (2023), 1–36

    work page 2023

  41. [41]

    Weiwen Leung, Zheng Zhang, Daviti Jibuti, Jinhao Zhao, Maximilian Klein, Casey Pierce, Lionel Robert, and Haiyi Zhu. 2020. Race, gender and beauty: The effect of information provision on online hiring biases. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–11

    work page 2020

  42. [42]

    Lan Li, Tina Lassiter, Joohee Oh, and Min Kyung Lee. 2021. Algorithmic hiring in practice: Recruiter and HR Professional’s perspectives on AI use in hiring. InProceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. 166–176

    work page 2021

  43. [43]

    Louis Lippens. 2024. Computer says ‘no’: Exploring systemic bias in ChatGPT using an audit approach.Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans 2, 1 (2024), 100054

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692 (2019)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  45. [45]

    Ioana Marinescu, Andrew Chamberlain, Morgan Smart, and Nadav Klein. 2021. Incentives can reduce bias in online employer reviews. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 27, 2 (2021), 393

    work page 2021

  46. [46]

    Mary L McHugh. 2012. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia medica 22, 3 (2012), 276–282

    work page 2012

  47. [47]

    Miroslava Migovich, Deeksha Adiani, Michael Breen, Amy Swanson, Timothy J Vogus, and Nilanjan Sarkar. 2024. Stress Detection of Autistic Adults during Simulated Job Interviews Using a Novel Physiological Dataset and Machine Learning. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing 17, 1 (2024), 1–25

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    Varun Nagaraj Rao and Aleksandra Korolova. 2023. Discrimination through Image Selection by Job Advertisers on Facebook. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency . 1772–1788

    work page 2023

  49. [49]

    Preetam Nandy, Cyrus Diciccio, Divya Venugopalan, Heloise Logan, Kinjal Basu, and Noureddine El Karoui. 2022. Achieving Fairness via Post-Processing in Web-Scale Recommender Systems. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 715–725

    work page 2022

  50. [50]

    Council of the European Union. 2000. Council Directive 2000/43/EC Implementing the Principle of Equal Treatment Between Persons Irrespective of Racial or Ethnic Origin. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri= %20celex%3A32000L0043. Accessed: 2024-08-14

    work page 2000

  51. [51]

    Tracy E Ore and Paul Kurtz. 2000. The social construction of difference and inequality . Mayfield Publishing

    work page 2000

  52. [52]

    Prasanna Parasurama and João Sedoc. 2021. Degendering Resumes for Fair Algorithmic Resume Screening. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.08910 (2021)

    work page arXiv 2021

  53. [53]

    Gourab K Patro, Arpita Biswas, Niloy Ganguly, Krishna P Gummadi, and Abhijnan Chakraborty. 2020. Fairrec: Two-sided fairness for personalized recommendations in two-sided platforms. In Proceedings of the web conference

    work page 2020

  54. [54]

    Alejandro Pena, Ignacio Serna, Aythami Morales, and Julian Fierrez. 2020. Bias in multimodal AI: Testbed for fair automatic recruitment. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops. 28–29

    work page 2020

  55. [55]

    J Pfeffer. 1998. The human equation: Building profits by putting people first. Harvard Business School (1998)

    work page 1998

  56. [56]

    Nicholas Proferes, Naiyan Jones, Sarah Gilbert, Casey Fiesler, and Michael Zimmer. 2021. Studying reddit: A systematic overview of disciplines, approaches, methods, and ethics. Social Media+ Society 7, 2 (2021), 20563051211019004

    work page 2021

  57. [57]

    Sharon L Segrest Purkiss, Pamela L Perrewé, Treena L Gillespie, Bronston T Mayes, and Gerald R Ferris. 2006. Implicit sources of bias in employment interview judgments and decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 101, 2 (2006), 152–167

    work page 2006

  58. [58]

    Lincoln Quillian, Devah Pager, Ole Hexel, and Arnfinn H Midtbøen. 2017. Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, 41 (2017), 10870–10875

    work page 2017

  59. [59]

    Filip Radlinski, Krisztian Balog, Fernando Diaz, Lucas Dixon, and Ben Wedin. 2022. On natural language user profiles for transparent and scrutable recommendation. In Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval . 2863–2874

    work page 2022

  60. [60]

    Manish Raghavan, Solon Barocas, Jon Kleinberg, and Karen Levy. 2020. Mitigating bias in algorithmic hiring: Evaluating claims and practices. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency . 469–481

    work page 2020

  61. [61]

    Peter A Riach and Judith Rich. 2002. Field experiments of discrimination in the market place. The economic journal 112, 483 (2002), F480–F518

    work page 2002

  62. [62]

    In this online environment, we’re limited

    Jazz Rui Xia Ang, Ping Liu, Emma McDonnell, and Sarah Coppola. 2022. “In this online environment, we’re limited”: Exploring Inclusive Video Conferencing Design for Signers. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–16. J. ACM, Vol. 1, No. 1, Article 1. Publication date: January 2025. 1:24 Changyang He, Yue Deng, Ale...

    work page 2022

  63. [63]

    Clara Rus, Jeffrey Luppes, Harrie Oosterhuis, and Gido H Schoenmacker. 2022. Closing the gender wage gap: Adversarial fairness in job recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.09592 (2022)

    work page arXiv 2022

  64. [64]

    Abel Salinas, Parth Shah, Yuzhong Huang, Robert McCormack, and Fred Morstatter. 2023. The unequal opportunities of large language models: Examining demographic biases in job recommendations by chatgpt and llama. InProceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization . 1–15

    work page 2023

  65. [65]

    Javier Sánchez-Monedero, Lina Dencik, and Lilian Edwards. 2020. What does it mean to’solve’the problem of discrimi- nation in hiring? Social, technical and legal perspectives from the UK on automated hiring systems. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency . 458–468

    work page 2020

  66. [66]

    It’s the most fair thing to do but it doesn’t make any sense

    Priya Sarkar and Cynthia CS Liem. 2024. " It’s the most fair thing to do but it doesn’t make any sense": Perceptions of Mathematical Fairness Notions by Hiring Professionals. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 8, CSCW1 (2024), 1–35

    work page 2024

  67. [67]

    Avital Shulner-Tal, Tsvi Kuflik, and Doron Kliger. 2023. Enhancing fairness perception–Towards human-centred AI and personalized explanations understanding the factors influencing laypeople’s fairness perceptions of algorithmic decisions. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 39, 7 (2023), 1455–1482

    work page 2023

  68. [68]

    John D Skrentny. 2006. Policy-elite perceptions and social movement success: Understanding variations in group inclusion in affirmative action. Amer. J. Sociology 111, 6 (2006), 1762–1815

    work page 2006

  69. [69]

    Megha Srivastava, Hoda Heidari, and Andreas Krause. 2019. Mathematical notions vs. human perception of fairness: A descriptive approach to fairness for machine learning. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining . 2459–2468

    work page 2019

  70. [70]

    stuck_in_the_matrix; Watchful1; RaiderBDev. 2024. Reddit comments/submissions 2005-06 to 2023-12. (2024)

    work page 2024

  71. [71]

    Hung-Yue Suen and Kuo-En Hung. 2023. Comparing job applicant deception in asynchronous vs synchronous video interviews, with and without AI-assisted assessments. Information Technology & People (2023)

    work page 2023

  72. [72]

    Tom Sühr, Asia J Biega, Meike Zehlike, Krishna P Gummadi, and Abhijnan Chakraborty. 2019. Two-sided fairness for repeated matchings in two-sided markets: A case study of a ride-hailing platform. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining . 3082–3092

    work page 2019

  73. [73]

    Tom Sühr, Sophie Hilgard, and Himabindu Lakkaraju. 2021. Does fair ranking improve minority outcomes? understand- ing the interplay of human and algorithmic biases in online hiring. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society . 989–999

    work page 2021

  74. [74]

    Akshaj Kumar Veldanda, Fabian Grob, Shailja Thakur, Hammond Pearce, Benjamin Tan, Ramesh Karri, and Siddharth Garg. 2023. Are Emily and Greg still more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? Investigating algorithmic hiring bias in the era of ChatGPT. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.05135 (2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  75. [75]

    There is a Job Prepared for Me Here

    Piaohong Wang, Siying Hu, Bo Wen, and Zhicong Lu. 2024. “There is a Job Prepared for Me Here”: Understanding How Short Video and Live-streaming Platforms Empower Ageing Job Seekers in China. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–14

    work page 2024

  76. [76]

    Ruotong Wang, F Maxwell Harper, and Haiyi Zhu. 2020. Factors influencing perceived fairness in algorithmic decision- making: Algorithm outcomes, development procedures, and individual differences. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–14

    work page 2020

  77. [77]

    Bernard Weiner, Irene Frieze, Andy Kukla, Linda Reed, Stanley Rest, and Robert M Rosenbaum. 1987. Perceiving the causes of success and failure.. In Preparation of this paper grew out of a workshop on attribution theory held at University of California, Los Angeles, Aug 1969. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc

    work page 1987

  78. [78]

    Bernard Weiner and Jack Sierad. 1975. Misattribution for failure and enhancement of achievement strivings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31, 3 (1975), 415

    work page 1975

  79. [79]

    Wikipedia. 2024. 2023 Reddit API controversy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Reddit_API_controversy. Accessed: 2024-09-12

    work page 2024

  80. [80]

    Maya Yaneva. 2018. Employee satisfaction vs. employee engagement vs. employee NPS. European Journal of Economics and Business Studies 4, 1 (2018), 221–227

    work page 2018

Showing first 80 references.